Category: Gun Control

The gun control debate in the United Stated is decades, if not centuries, old. This is why this issue was deemed important enough to be included in the Second Amendment of the United States constitution. Currently, the debate has been heightened by a series of events that have occurred in the country in recent times.

The movie theatre shootings in Aurora and the more recent school shootings are examples of events that have contributed to the increased gun-control debate. This debate is the subject of a recent opinion piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal. The article appears in the February issue and it is jointly authored by Rivkin and Grossman. In the article, the authors contribute to the debate on gun control from a constitutional standpoint.

According to the authors, the current president seems uncomfortable around guns. This issue was recently spoofed in a fabricated photo that portrayed President Obama being shot by Skeet in the State House. Other than a president who is against guns, the authors note that this debate has only two major groups on opposing sides.

There are those who feel that guns are necessary as tools of self-defense against criminals or political uprisings. The opposing group considers this view as archaic and subversive. However, this article dismisses these two groups and focuses on what the countrys constitution states about this issue.

According to Rivkin and Grossman, the constitution clearly gives American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. A right that was cemented in a 2008 ruling by the Supreme Court in the matter of Heller v. District of Columbia (Rivkin and Grossman 3).

The main argument in this article is that the government cannot deny citizens their constitutional right and continue to justify itself using weak and selfish arguments. This paper agrees with Rivkin and Grossmans argument that there is no justifiable argument that warrants gun control.

The reason why the gun control debate has increased is because its proponents seem to have State House backing. Recent utterances by the president indicate that he is in support of gun control. It is not clear whether the president views gun control as a viable solution or like many other gun-control proponents he is just uncomfortable around guns. Recent tragedies involving guns are also acting as another source of fuel for this debate.

Last year in July, a gunman entered a fully packed movie theater in Aurora, Colorado with a gun and shot indiscriminately at the crowd. In the process, 12 Americans lost their lives and 58 more suffered gunshot related injuries. Before that, there was the Tucson mass shooting in which six people were killed and fourteen more wounded.

This year, a teenager entered a classroom with a gun and shot indiscriminately at teachers and school going children in one of the bloodiest mass shootings witnessed in the country. While all these events need to be addressed, gun control is not the answer. The authors maintain that these are just unfortunate events that do not warrant an alteration of the constitution.

In addition, acting now is tantamount to making a symbolic change because there is need to for something to be done (Rivkin and Grossman 2). Indeed something has to be done, but changing legislations seems like overkill. What is worrying is that no alternative solutions are offered. The government should present at least two or three viable solutions to the mass-shooting problem.

Previous rulings by the highest court in the land have been in favor of the opponents of gun control. In a 2008 case, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no other interpretations to the Second Amendment (Krouse 24). The judges upheld that the constitution states that the right of the people to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. Shortly after this ruling, another case pitting McDonald v. Chicago was presented before the Supreme Court.

This case sought to seek clarification on whether the Second Amendment applies to individual states. The court ruled that no state has the jurisdiction to deny an individual the right to bear arms. These rulings among others indicate that the matter of constitutional interpretation in relation to gun control is clear. The constitution means what it says, American citizens have the right to bear and keep arms.

Politicians on the other hand have no say in the matter of the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights makes it impossible for politicians to carry out self-interests in the issue of gun control. The authors of the constitution foresaw the importance of the citizens right to own guns and therefore ensured it was secure from groups and politicians with self-interest on the matter. As the Supreme Court has upheld time and again, gun control is not an issue that favors the rights of the minority.

In addition, the Second Amendment is not ambiguous as many gun control proponents argue. The constitution is clear on the issues of gun control. Therefore, there is no room for gun control as far as the constitution is concerned. Those advocating for gun control should look for other avenues to further their agenda other than the constitution.

According to Rivkin and Grossman, any changes to the constitution should not be influenced by emotions and mass hysteria. The current debate on gun control seems to fall under the category of mass hysteria. This is because almost all those proposing for gun control seem to refer to the recent increase in mass shootings.

The reason for doing this is to try to appeal to the current mass hysteria. Currently, there are government advisories directing citizens to be on the lookout for mass shooters. In addition, some schools have enforced stringent weapon screening measures to control weapon entry in schools. All these are signs of a society that is in panic mode.

Therefore, the president and other stakeholders should not be quick to amend the constitution on account of this panic. The authors claim that there should be a legitimate interest before any legislation is changed or made (Rivkin and Grossman 3). There is no need to interfere with a constitutionally granted right in an effort to make a symbolic gesture that is meant to calm the citizens down.

The constitution provides that any changes to the legislation be accompanied by a legitimate interest and the resulting alteration should be as little as possible. An example of this stipulation is a recent decision by the Supreme Court to delegitimize a federal ban that prohibited depictions of animal cruelty.

In the ruling, the court found that the ban interfered with free speech. This ruling indicates that the rights of the individual are always a priority over the rights of the government. The same argument can be applied to the debate against gun control.

The article argues that all the proposed modes of gun control are unsatisfactory. For instance, several states are proposing gun insurance. This insurance is supposed to cover for any damages that an individuals gun may execute just like in vehicle insurance. This move is not likely to benefit the public in any major way.

This is because this insurance is only supposed to cover accidents and not intentional crimes. The move is just an effort to make it difficult for citizens to own guns. Moreover, some states are proposing a high tax on bullets. These excessive taxes are supposed to limit the use of guns. All these measures are just a clever way of circumventing the Second Amendment.

However, the courts are likely to fault these proposals on the grounds that they interference with the Second Amendment. The regulatory stance of these proposals is similar to regulating free press by making newspapers very expensive. When the government increases the price of bullets, it is the same as increasing the price of ink just to limit newspaper circulation.

The president also has made a proposal to ban guns that can be categorized as assault weapons. The weapons that fall under this category bear different features such as enhanced grips or threaded barrels. While these guns seem super-dangerous, their mechanisms are almost similar to those of other weapons.

For instance, the guns may look different but they still have the same magazine sizes and firing mechanisms that ordinary guns have. In cases of gun misuse, both assault and ordinary guns are equally dangerous. Therefore, banning particular types of weapons does not guarantee public safety in any way. In some instances, gun controllers might ban some types of guns based on their personal preferences.

The authors note that some aspects of gun control are permissible. According to the article, checks and balances to ensure that gun ownership is not abused are necessary. For example, there should be strict background checks before citizens are allowed to own guns.

However, the government still has no right to curtail the freedom of law-abiding citizens to own guns. In addition, the government should restrain from enforcing measures that infringe on this right indirectly. Some of these measures include imposing registration fees, taxes, and insensible waiting periods for gun ownership.

The authors of this article add their opinions to a debate that has dominated the airwaves for the most part of this year. The arguments forwarded by the authors are quite solid. The authors point out the contribution of the current president in the debate against gun control. The article argues that the presidents contribution is ill advised and propelled by mass hysteria. The authors lean on the constitution when they are giving their opinion.

Rivkin and Grossman are both law practitioners in Washington and they see the necessity to consult the constitution in the ongoing debate against gun control. Their argument dwells on the probability of undermining the Second Amendment or the Bill of Rights by enacting gun control measures.

According to the articles argument, all the proposed gun control measures interfere with the Second Amendment in one way or another. The authors are of the view that the existing gun control measures are enough to combat any crisis. The need to exempt passion and emotions from the gun control debate is also emphasized by this argument.

Works Cited

Krouse, William. Gun Control Legislation. Congressional Research Service 7.57(2012). 1-118. Print.

Rivkin, David and Andrew Grossman. Gun Control and the Constitution. The Wall Street Journal 2.4(2013): 2-5. Print.

The US Government is the main authority in providing the necessary laws and policies in order to regulate all the spheres of the publics life in the country. The leadership of the government is realized in its ability to create the safe environment for the public where laws and policies have the real power. The problem is in the fact that definite laws can be discussed as threatening for people because of their controversial character.

Thus, according to the principles of the democratic society, the US population has the right to protect their life and property with the help of guns. From this point, the right to own guns can be considered as the accentuation of the Americans civil liberties. However, there is the other side of the issue. Nowadays, gun assaults become typical for the American society, and the situation requires its immediate regulation with references to the governments leadership.

If the question of gun control policies was not actively discussed several years ago, today the situation is quite opposite, and the first attempts to control gun violence are observed. Thus, the task of the government is not only to provide laws and policies to follow the democratic principles but also to focus on the publics security and citizens right to live which can be violated with references to the ineffective gun control laws.

Laws and policies often require their further improvement in order to respond to all the aspects of the definite social situation. The concentration of the US government on changing and improving the gun control policies is caused by the challenging tendency of increasing a number of tragic events associated with gun assaults and teenagers violence.

It is important to note that the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, was not unique, but the number of the similar incidents became unusually high during the last decade. Lawrence and Birkland are studying the tendency during several years. In their research, the authors refer to the situation of 1999. Thus, in April 1999, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado shot and killed 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves (Lawrence and Birkland 1193).

The incident in Colorado shocked the American public. In more than ten years, the number of victims and the frequency of similar incidents are higher, and this tendency should be changed with the help of improving the governments approach to controlling the usage of guns by citizens.

The US citizens have the right to purchase guns to protect themselves. This right is debatable because of many negative consequences which are not regulated with the help of the law or certain restricting measures. According to Stell, gun assaults are 5-7 times more likely to result in death than non-guns assaults & 70% of American homicides are committed with guns (Stell 38). Thus, carefully-crafted, well-enforced firearms control policies can contribute to marginal reductions in criminal violence (Stell 38).

That is why, the authorities should pay much attention to regulating the situation and preventing the development of the tendency. From this point, the US government is obliged to provide restrictions in order to control the gun violence. Mass shootings at schools can be discussed as the evidence to support the debates on the necessity of the restricting laws and measures to cope with the issue of gun violence, and teenagers violence particularly.

The US policies are traditionally developed with references to the principles of the democratic society. Nevertheless, the accentuation of some freedoms and rights should be balanced avoiding the violation of the other citizens liberties.

Effective gun control laws are necessary to prevent such situations when twenty innocent children become the victims of the ineffective law and the lack of necessary regulations. Thus, the debates on the development of the gun control laws have a long history. However, the first steps to restrict gun violence with the help of the concrete actions were made only in January, 2013.

Several states reacted to the situation in Newtown with providing the restricting measures to the gun policies and laws. Thus, Andrew Cuomo, the Governor in New York, was the first governor to sign the restricting law on gun control. The new law is focused on the definition of what is considered an assault weapon and reduces the permissible size of gun magazines to 7 rounds, from 10, and this law also emphasizes provisions to better keep firearms away from mentally ill people (Kaplan).

The above-mentioned details can be discussed as important to regulate the current situation and to overcome the problem of gun violence. It is important to pay attention to the fact that the rate of mass shootings is based on the publics access to guns directly, and any restricting laws and gun control measures can be effective to change the negative tendency.

The first restricting law signed in New York is the first attempt to prevent the mass shootings and incidents at schools in the future. The effective legitimate steps are necessary to provide the secure environment for the US citizens without violating their civil freedoms and rights. From this point, the US governments task is to continue to improve the laws on gun control in order to decrease the rate of homicides and teenagers violent attacks.

Works Cited

Kaplan, Thomas. Sweeping Limits on Guns Become Law in New York. 2013. Web.

Lawrence, Regina, and Thomas Birkland. Guns, Hollywood, and School Safety: Defining the School-Shooting Problem Across Public Arenas. Social Science Quarterly 85.5 (2004): 1193-1207. Print.

Stell, Lance. The Production of Criminal Violence in America: Is Strict Gun Control the Solution? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32.1 (2004): 38-46. Print.

The issue of gun control, more specifically whether people should be given leniency or be subject to strict laws, is one of modern times and has received a lot of attention.

From one perspective, people want to have full control of their safety and their property but at the same time, easy access to firearms could create more problems than solve. Even though change is inevitable and people are starting to possess guns and push for allowances, it is better to slow the process down as much as possible, so that people can get used to and deal with more important issues at hand.

Since the beginning of human history, people would always carry some sort of protective weapon. Spears, swords, projectile weapons and other devices would be used against the human enemy or to avoid animal attacks. Wars were commonplace in the older days, so it is understandable that people were more eager to fight and resort to violence.

The modern days have seen a lot of evolution of the human mind and understanding of the surrounding world. The government has provided organized protection of citizens in the form of army, police services and other protective organizations. It is a fact that there are places in the world that are torn apart by wars and violent conflict where people are used to carrying weapons for protection.

A much different case can be seen in the United States because peace is the end result of any civilization and human evolution. Only peace can allow for further development of peoples mind and soul whereas war, can only delay, set back or completely destroy life. It would be unwise to deny that people need protection even in the time of peace. Police and protective services cannot constantly and simultaneously be everywhere at once, so sometimes people have to fight for their life or avoidance of harm.

Examples of this are robberies, assaults and other crimes that are dominant in the modern age. It is possible to assume that if people are allowed to carry guns for protection, the world will become safer but it also means that criminals will have guns as well. All gun possession today by the criminal world is illegal and prohibited, so it is somewhat harder to get, comparing to full permission by the government. Also, if both victims and criminals carry guns, it will almost certainly be unavoidable for a gun fight to break out.

But, if there is a ban on carrying a concealed weapon, then people will have a higher chance to survive with non-fatal wounds. Of course, the extreme cases will always exist and there will always be people who will not need weapons to be violent but it is still better to have a higher chance of survival. As always, there are compromises, such as non-lethal weaponstasers, pepper spray, martial arts, protective armor, batons and many other possible solutions.

An article titled Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control? confirms the view that the more gun control there is, the less guns there will be available for usage. If the government applies strict laws and penalties, there will be limited access, availability and incline to use weapons.

There is a rather valid point about not only the existence of laws and regulations but also the ability of the jurisdictions and services to enforce these policies. A question of whom and how the appropriate level of gun control will be decided is another issue. Many angles will have to be considered when enforcing and making policies related to gun control.

There would have to be companies and organizations that will register the firearms. These must be government controlled because private firms can make their own regulations, even to a slightest degree. If the laws are centralized by the federal government, the private companies would have to adhere to the policies, so uniformity will be guaranteed.

There would have to be training courses on the usage and safety procedures with the weapons. The sale of firearms will be controlled through background checks, limitations in the number of guns purchased within a certain period of time, as well as thorough registration of the individual product (Moorhouse and Wanner 2006). In any case, it is clear that there will be many things that will change, either the laws become stricter to control prohibition or more permissive regarding firearms.

An article The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century  and Its Lessons for Gun Laws Today examines the historical perspective, going back to the 1920s. Since the very beginning, there were two extreme sides, one argued that there must be a total prohibition of guns for self defense and very limited allowance for sports usage, and the other side was completely permissive. Almost from the start, the NRA (National Rifle Association) was involved in the mater on the political level.

After the Second World War, the training that people received because of NRA was appreciated, as it became useful during wartime and the period when there was an increase in the mobilization of forces. On many occasions during the American history there were riots and violent outbreaks of protestors that were accompanied by deaths due to the availability of guns and a large portion of the population was becoming outraged (Kopel 2012).

Either way the issue of guns is analyzed, it is clear that the higher the availability and permission to possess firearms, the more chances there are that someone will use weapons. Even though people argue that it should be allowed for protection of the individuals and their property, there are many other ways that people can feel safe, through governmental policies, laws and simply a careful and organized living.

A philosophical and moral view is illustrated in an article Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control: Notes from an American Moderate. The existence of the argument between those people who want guns in their hand and those who want them far away and destroyed, describes the fight between good and evil.

Humanity has created weapons for protection but the qualities that are given to the advancement of these weapons are directed towards mass destruction. The ingenuity of humans must be used for positive evolution but the opposite happens. The existence of machine guns, automatic weapons, bombs and the like is made to kill large amount of people with easiness and efficiency.

This says a lot about the purpose of the weapon, as it has got far away from self defense, to mass murder. A seemingly outrageous and inherently evil point is mentioned that these handguns and automatics were made for the purpose to exterminate people. White population would target minorities, minorities would target each other and so, all unwanted criminals will be naturally got rid of (Casteen 2004).

The scary nature of this supposition is very real, as there are many examples when these weapons were used for this specific purpose. Even though it is impossible to prove or trace back the true reasons for the creation of these high capacity weapons, it is hard to deny the usage and evidence that exists today. An article titled Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard of Scrutiny Should Apply to Gun Control Laws? raises the specific laws and allowance in relation to guns being used by different types of people.

It notes a perspective that even criminals and those involved in drug trafficking or other prohibited activities might really need to carry weapons for protection. Even though they are breaking the law, the nature of their living conditions seems to allow them more rights to protect themselves. This is a very farfetched view and will most likely have minimal support.

The article also mentions that in case handguns become allowed with a permission to carry without concealment, it would lead to gang members carrying their weapons openly. As a consequence, this law would negate the right of authorities to search or frisk these individuals. As a result, there will be even less control of possession of firearms or other illegal items (Rosenthal and Malcolm 2011).

The inevitable nature of people getting more rights and freedoms suggests that restrictions on firearms will be lessened. This knowledge should be enough to make people and governments realize that laws prohibiting weapon usage should be increased and enforced through even stricter regulations. Guns should not be a part of any civilization, as there is only one resultself-destruction.

Works Cited

Casteen, John. Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control: Notes from an American Moderate. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 80.4 (2004): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Kopel, David. The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century  and Its Lessons for Gun Laws Today. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 39.5 (2012): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Moorhouse, John and Brent Wanner. Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or Does Crime Increase Gun Control? The Cato Journal, 26.1(2006): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Rosenthal, Lawrence and Joyce Malcolm. Mcdonald V. Chicago: Which Standard Of Scrutiny Should Apply To Gun Control Laws? Northwestern University Law Review, 105.1 (2011): n. pag. Web.11 June 2013.

Introduction

The debate about gun control and limitation in America recently took a sharp turn when the U.S. president attempted to push for the legislation of a more restrictive firearm law without success.

The failure to enact legislation for more restrictive gun laws present more challenges. It means that dangerous gun owners may still endanger the lives of Americans. The recent violence and unselective killing of American citizens may probably continue.

Advocacy for or against gun control in the country has divided Americans in terms of thoughts. The supporters of gun limitation are concerned about escalating cases of violence associated with firearms. For example, the inhumane killing of twenty children and seven staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School by one America gun owner was a traumatizing experience (The White House).

However, opponents of gun limitation and control appear untroubled by such occurrences. Instead, their concern normally relates to the notion that gun control can deny them their constitutional rights pertaining to self-defense. This paper presents the concerns of both proponents and opponents of gun control.

Arguments against Gun Control and Limitation

The opponents of gun control and limitation normally argue that the Second Amendment explicitly offer them an opportunity to own firearms. Particularly, they own firearms for self-protection against criminals and a tyrannical government (Gischler 7). The interpretation of Second Amendment is still work in progress towards attaining a consensus. However, there is no consensus about the interpretation of the clause.

Opponents of gun control believe that the Second Amendment aimed at protecting Americans against a government that intends to take away their rights to own guns (Gischler 7). The opponents seek to continue enjoying their gun ownership rights because the constitution provides for the regulated militia. They argue that it was the intention of the Second Amendment to keep the firearms and contribute to the promotion of security (Gold18).

Opponents of gun regulation have also suggested that controlling firearm ownership and use usurps the rights of law abiding Americans. They have presented strong cases regarding the notion that gun limitation present more challenges associated with unnecessary stringent laws (Gold19).

In addition, the Americans observe that they do not need more regulations because they are already adhering to the minimum laws on gun ownership. The people who use guns for recreation and leisure activities also fear that gun control and limitation initiatives might take away their rights for such engagements (Crooker 45).

Finally, the opponents reject gun control and limitation initiatives because they are highly ineffective. They criticize gun control for failing to stop or reduce firearm violence. The Chicago State has featured extensively in the opponents arguments seeking to show the ineffectiveness of the original gun control legislations (Tushnet 6).

Their main argument has revolved around the statistics that emerged indicating that in a single year five hundred people died because of gun violence and gun wounds in Chicago. For them, the control and limitation initiatives aimed at regulating firearm ownership and use cannot generate positive results (Goss 117).

They also observe that guns are not responsible for killing people. Instead, people are responsible for the death of others. People who are killers can murder others using any weapon and guns. Therefore, they declare that targeting guns through legislations indicates mischief.

Arguments for Gun Control and Limitation

The proponents of gun control and limitation have advanced different arguments in support of such initiatives. The supporters argue that Americans should collaborate in efforts aimed at reducing or stopping unnecessary murder cases similar to the killings that occurred recently (Gold18). The recent firearm violence and haphazard killing of innocent Americans should be brought under control through legislating more restrictive gun laws to control ownership and use of the deadly weapons (The White House).

Furthermore, the proponents suggest that gun limitation is crucial to reducing homicide cases in the country. Therefore, gun control and limitation is simply concerned with ensuring that dangerous people do not access guns (Gischler 7). The proponents have also promised that gun control initiatives are not focused on taking away the rights of Americans to own and use firearms.

The proponents also argue that gun limitation initiatives seek to offer law enforcement departments more tools to check and prosecute shotgun violence (The White House).

The apparatus that gun control and limitation intend to apply include the integration of background checks on all activities associated with gun sales or exchange among individuals. Background checks are crucial to ensuring that dangerous Americans do not access firearms (Magoon 55). Gun control initiatives seek to close firearm loopholes particularly to dangerous Americans interested in purchasing guns.

Furthermore, gun control is not about taking away the rights of Americans to own and use guns. The initiatives aim at ensuring that people do not own stronger attack rifles (Magoon 54). The strong weapons include assault firearms that can kill many people at a go. Gun control also seeks to allow government agencies to conduct robust research into the key issues that cause deaths associated with firearms and suggest appropriate ways of averting further killings (The White House).

Works Cited

Crooker, Constance E. Historic Guide to Gun Control. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003. Print.

Gischler, Katrin. Why Has Gun Control Become Such a Contentious Issue in American Politics? Munchen: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2007. Print.

Gold, Susan D. Gun Control. New York: Benchmark Books, 2004. Print.

Goss, Kristin A. Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.

Magoon, Kekla. Gun Control. Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub, 2008. Print.

The White House. Now is the time to do something about gun violence. 2013. Web.

Tushnet, Mark. Out of Range: Why the Constitution Cant End the Battle Over Guns. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Introduction

The current violent acts and indiscriminate killings of Americans have shocked the nation and left many people traumatized. The country has suffered because of dangerous individuals who use firearms to commit horrendous acts of violence. There is the need to regulate gun ownership and use in the country.

Proponents of gun laws are concerned that public safety is increasingly diminishing. An instance of this is manifested in the escalating firearm related crimes. On the contrary, the opponents of gun laws are concerned that more restrictive regulations take away their rights for self-defense.

Individuals who use firearms for recreational purposes have also protested against the proposed gun laws. Much as the opponents of firearm regulations have raised strong arguments for the need to continue owning guns, this paper states that the dangerous individuals should be stopped from handling guns in order to stop the unnecessary loss of lives associated with gun violence shows the need to have a more restrictive gun laws.

Arguments for or against Gun Laws

Americans are divided over the proposal to enact a more restrictive gun laws. Many people have challenged the proposal to legislate stringent firearm regulations. The opponents have argued that Americans must defend themselves against criminals.

They have argued that allowing augmented firearm possession and use for self-protection is the most effective approach to control firearm violence and murder (The White House, 2013). However, the opponents should appreciate that more restrictive gun laws does not take away their self-defense rights. The proposed gun regulations only seek to give law enforcement agencies more apparatus to avert and prosecute firearm violence.

The opponents of gun laws also argue that the Second Amendment expressly allow individuals to own guns for protection purposes. They suggest that an attempt by the government to institute a new legislation on more restrictive firearm use shall take away their civil rights.

They believe that the government shall have acted in a tyrannical manner by restricting their liberty to own firearms. However, it appears that opponents of the restrictive gun regulations do not understand the proposals made proponents of the new gun laws (The White House, 2013). The proposals for restrictive gun laws seek to integrate background checks for firearms sales. This can stop potentially dangerous people from accessing firearms.

The proponents of new gun laws propose to seal gun show loopholes. Promoting more stringent background checks is crucial to shutting all the loopholes (Peters, 2013). Background checks apply to people interested in purchasing firearms. Furthermore, the proposed regulations seek to institute a stronger ban on attack weapons (The White House, 2013).

This seeks to prohibit ownership of dangerous firearms that can kill many people in a short time. The proposals also suggest a robust research on the notable causes of firearm violence in America. The research does not amount to advocacy.

It is a way of generating information on how the government can provide more protection to Americans particularly concerning firearm ownership (The White House, 2013). The new proposal also seeks to make American schools safe by employing more resource personnel to promote emergency response in case of future attacks. Evidently, the proposals have no effect on the rights of Americans to own firearms. Therefore, Americans ought to support the proposed gun laws.

Conclusion

In summary, the recent wave of gun violence in America has affected many families. Opponents have cited diverse reasons for rejecting laws that are more restrictive. However, the proposals advanced by proponents do not present radical effects on the rights of Americans to own guns.

References

The White House. (2013). Now is the Time to do something about Gun Violence. Web.

Peters, J. (2013). Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control. The New York Times. Web.

Introduction

Canadas firearm registry has been there for a along period of time. The later amendments in firearm registry in Canada entailed the requirement of long-gun registry introduced in 1995. Since its introduction, the firearm registry had been faced with numerous political issues. The issues arise due to the high costs that are associated with the process and also the diverse philosophy among Canadian political parties concerning gun registry.

The introduction of the Possession and Acquisition License brought many changes on the procedures that control how people in Canada own and use firearms. The act was aimed at regulating possession and usage of firearms in Canada in order to guarantee the safety and peace for all. The strategy introduced by the federal government was a good step in trying to reduce firearms violence in Canada, but unfortunately the system had failed to reduce gun violence at a reasonable cost.

History of gun Control in Canada

The Canada federal government had instituted gun control legislations for over 100 years. The criminal violators of the gun control legislations had been prosecuted through the Canadian criminal legal mechanism. In 1800s the Canadian federal government imposed certain limitations relating to how Canadians were expected to handle firearms.

During this era the Canadian residents were at liberty to carry or sell firearms. In 1892 the Canadian federal government introduced the first permit that required Canadians to have a certificate that allowed them to have a pistol outside their workplaces or homes.

Those people that violated this law were penalized a small fine. In 1913 this law was changed and people were required to apply for a permit to allow them to buy small firearms. Those who violated this law were sentenced to a maximum of three months imprisonment. In 1920 the firearm control legislation was further strengthened and it then required all people residing in Canada to have a permit to allow them possessed any firearm.

In 1921 the Canadian federal government loosened its stand and changed the firearm control legislation. The act then required all foreigners to have a permit to possess any firearm and the Canadians residents to have only a permit to carry a small gun outside their homes or workplaces.

In 1930 the Canadian federal government tightened its firearms control legislation and required all those people that were involved in selling firearms to have a permit. In 1951 the Canadian government introduced a single small-arm registry that was controlled by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mount Police (CRCMP). In 1969 the Canadian federal government came up with a new system that regulated certain weapons.

There were those weapons that were categorized as prohibited. These included certain weapons that Canadians were not permitted to own. They included those weapons with silencers. The second class was the regulated weapons. These included those weapons that could be legally possessed by Canadians, but under certain restrictions. People were required to get licenses in order for them to buy these firearms.

The federal government passed the firearm act that resulted to the replacement of the Firearm Acquisition Certificate with a new licensing mechanism that is referred as Possession and Acquisition License. This license required a license to possess and use a firearm. The act also required registration of all firearms. The enacting of the law resulted to the formation of Canada Firearm Centre that was meant to foresee the implementation of the program. The body was mandated with the tasks of registering all firearms.

After the registration of firearms, the information is inputted into an electronic database that is referred as Canadian Firearm Information system. This system synchronizes specific firearms with their owners. This enables police to query and access specific firearm details in real time in order to trace the owner of firearms located in crimes (RCMP Canadian Firearms Program evaluation, 2010).

High Cost Associated the Gun Registry

Since its introduction in 1995, the long-gun registry had been faced with numerous oppositions from various parties. Many factions have criticized its inception because of the high costs that are associated with its running. The Liberal government that introduced this legislation had approximated that the program would run on a budget of about $ 119 million.

They had anticipated that a great part of the fund could be raised from the registration fees. The body had instituted various fees for possessing various weapons. For instance, the cost fee for carrying restricted firearms is $ 80 and $ 60 for non restricted firearms which is renewed after every five years.

In 2002, a review by the Auditor General Canada showed that the cost of running the program was over $ 1 billion. The registration fees were noted to account for only $ 140 million. By 2004, the cost of running the program had doubled from $ 1 billion to $ 2 billion. The taxpayers were initially anticipated to pay only $ 2 million to run the project while the remaining portion was supposed to be raised from the registrations fees.

Initially the Department of justice had reported to the parliament that only $ 119 million was required to run the project. The department had reported that the registration fees could reach $ 11 million while the taxpayers were supposed to foot out the remainder which translated to $ 2 million. In 2004/05 the cost of running the program was estimated to go over $ 2 billion. A part of the estimated $ 2 billion expenses were meant to cater for computer systems that were supposed to track registered guns.

Other expenses were meant to cater for refunds for those people that registered their guns plus more other unaccounted costs that were to be involved as legal fees during court challenges ( Makarenko , 2010). To make the matters worse the system was still noted to contain many errors, despite the high costs that were involved in running this project.

The program was characterized by numerous incorrect or incomplete entries that made the system less effective. Surprisingly, the RCMP in 2002 announced that it does not trust data in the system. The program is currently costing the taxpayers a lot more than it was initially budgeted for.

Therefore the federal government should accept the failure of the project and do away with it since it is consuming a lot of taxpayers money and is not yet very effective in curtailing criminal violence (Mauser, 2007). The Canadian firearm program released a message that explained the reasons for the rising costs associated with the implementation of the project. The management complained that the rising costs were being triggered by backlog in registrations, fee waivers for early application and high errors rates in applications.

The Canadian firearm program also blamed the difficulty in tracking down license fees due to computer failures in processing the application as a major factor behind the high rise in the costs. The report released on 2002 by the Auditor-General of Canada showed that the project was running much more above its initial budget. The body also linked the problem of the program to initial strategic and management failures (Facts and Figures, 2011).

Gun registry Does not achieve its Goals

Majority of Canadian supports tough licensing requirements in the process of possessing and use of firearms. Most of Canadian never wholly supports the registration of guns and especially the long-barreled firearms. They only support then when they are done in order to stop poaching (Manore &Dale, 2007).Many people argue that gun registry is not necessary since criminals do not register their weapons making the whole exercise meaningless.

Statistics show that majority of those people that are involved in firearms violence are young people who engage in robbery (Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry, 2011). The reports from the department of firearm registry indicates only the firearms registered or licenses issued, but do not show how these activities have helped to minimize public injuries or deaths .

Surprisingly there has been a current increase in homicide cases in Toronto, but the law registering firearms has not managed to uncover these crimes or solve them. Therefore the program of firearm registry should be scarped off and then the government looks for better mechanism to contain the problem (Canadian Firearms Program, 2011).

Similarly, many people argue against the licensing of firearms and especially the long-barreled firearms because majority of those people that are penalized are gun owners who are law-abiding citizens.

Instead of supporting gun registry, the government should opt for alternative means of combating criminal violence such as introducing a strict gun licensing procedures that entail a thorough check up of ones background before being allowed to possess a gun (Service CanWest News, 2011). The government should also make sure that they put into place very tough sentences on those people that use firearms for criminal violence.

The government should also ensure that they put appropriate measures to stop illegal smuggling of firearms in Canada. If the federal government implements these measures, then the Canada government should not have to retain the current gun registry that is becoming very expensive for Canadian taxpayers to support. The government should instead channel that money to other sectors takings such as health or education (The next phase of Canadas Economic Action Plan, 2011).

The failure of the Canadian government to institute the right measures that can adequately address the misuse of firearms for crime violence is the one that is making the Canadian taxpayers struggle to finance ineffective program that is very expensive and achieves very little results (Canadian attitudes toward gun control, 2007).

Conclusion

Firearm regulation in Canada is an issue that has been there for a very long period. The Canadian government had instituted various legislations to control the possession and use of firearms in diverse circumstances. The Canadian government had implemented these restrictions in order to guarantee the safety of all Canadians.

Among the legislation it have ever implemented include; restrictions to carry a pistol outside ones home or place of work, a need to have a permit to possess and use a firearm. The most recent amendment in the firearm legislation required all those people that possessed guns in Canada to register them with the department of firearm registry.

The implementation of this legislation has resulted to may factions complaining against it. Many people are complaining due to the high costs that are involved in running the program, despite its inability to achieve satisfactory results. Therefore the Canadian government should scrap off the program and look for a better alternative to stop firearms offenses in the country.

Bibliography

Canadian attitudes toward gun control: the real story. Toronto: Mackenzie Institute, 1997.

Canadian Firearms Program  Survey. Royal Canadian Mounted Police  Welcome | Gendarmerie royale du Canada  Bienvenue. Web.

Facts and Figures (2011). Royal Canadian Mounted Police  Welcome | Gendarmerie royale du Canada  Bienvenue. Web.

Makarenko , Jay. The Long-Gun Registry in Canada: History, Operation and Debates. | Judicial System & Legal Issues, 2010. Web.

Manore, Jean, and Dale Miner. The culture of hunting in Canada. Vancouver: Ubc Press, 2007.

Mauser, Gary A. Misfire: firearm registration in Canada. Canada: Fraser Institute. 2007.

RCMP Canadian Firearms Program evaluation: final approved report. Ottawa, Canada: Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2010.

Service, CanWest News. Bungled gun registry focus of Frasers report. Web.

The next phase of Canadas Economic Action Plan, a low-tax plan for jobs and growth. Ottawa, Canada: Govt. Of Canada, 2011.

Two-in-Five Canadians Would Scrap Long Gun Registry. Angus Reid Public Opinion. Web.

Introduction

Over the past years, the United States Congress has been engaged in protracted debates on the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. A number of federal laws have been enacted since 1934 to bolster such regulations. The issue of gun control has been a matter of discussion since time immemorial with gun control advocates advancing that such measures enhance the governments efforts to ensure that juveniles, criminal gangs, and other high risk groups do not get access to guns.

These advocates charge that the only practical way through which availability of guns can be reduced is by enforcing federal regulations. They have even suggested that stricter policies such as near-prohibition of gun ownership by non-security personnel be enforced and that all persons who own guns should be registered. These advocates posit that such measures have several significant benefits on society.

The issue of federal gun control has also received a fair share of opposition. Opponents hold that legislation of federal policies cannot in any way help in keeping guns out of reach of high-risk persons but rather adds an unnecessary burden on law abiding citizens and security personnel. Moreover, they argue that such controls deny the citizenry the privileges of the Second Amendment. To them, widespread gun ownership only serves to decrease crime levels and tyranny by criminal gangs and government.

They further argue that state police powers should be strenghtened as opposed to enhancing federal policies. Some of the most noteworthy national statutes enacted to help in controlling firearms within the citizenry were passed in 1934 and 1968. The 1934 Act envisaged strict registration requirements and a transfer tax on machine guns and short-barreled long guns.

The 1968 Act not only made it illegal to purchase guns through mail, but also forbade interstate trade in firearms, their transfer to underage persons, and access to other dangerous weapons (Gun Control, para. 2). The Act also stipulated penalties and licensing requisites for manufacturers, importers, and dealers. Crime and mortality statistics have prominently featured in the gun control debate (US Constitution, 2011).

Statistics indicate that the number of homicides that have been committed annually with a firearm by persons falling in the age bracket of 14-24 years between 1985 and 1993 increased by 173%. Between 1993 and 1999, a decrease of 47% was realized. Fatalities attributed to firearms from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%. For minors, especially juveniles, a decrease of 40% was realized between 1993 and 1998 (Gun Control, para. 1).

This argumentative essay on gun control will endeavor to support its thesis with reasons and concrete evidence. The argumentative essay will use pathos-a form of emotional appeal to its audience sympathies and imagination. This will make the audience easily identify with the writers point of view. The essay will include at least 3 arguments and two refutations to counter these arguments. The essay will try to validate the arguments by engaging in both inductive and deductive reasoning.

Gun Control

Gun control is an emotive debate that has to be treated with a lot of caution lest people begin arguing with emotions that can be counterproductive. I have been somewhat ambivalent with regard to the issue of federal gun control. Many questions have always been asked pertaining to federal gun control. These questions include: does an individual have a right to own a gun? Does stringent gun control decrease violence and crime?, and, is self-defense a good reason for gun ownership?

With regard to whether an individual should have the right to own a gun, it is imperative that one knows that the right to bear arms is an individual and not a collective right. In the Heller v District of Columbia case (US Constitution, 2011), the court ruled that the right to bear arms has always been in existent and that the court only serves to affirm that right.

The court reiterated that the right to bear arms is not dependent on military service (Endersby, para. 1). The court ruled that the six plaintiffs in the court case were free to legally own the guns they were previously forbidden from holding. This ruling should be extended to the rest of the population and hence nobody should be barred from owning guns.

While it is true that stringent gun control laws can decrease violence and crime, the move can flop and can instead increase the black market trade in guns and other dangerous weapons. Increased sales therefore imply the black market for guns will become profitable to criminals and this will intensify criminal activities and dealings motivated by the drive to increase profits margins.

One point that should be made clear is that it is individuals who kill their fellows, not the guns (Malcolm, para. 3). Therefore, it should be noted that gun violence is instigated by sociological factors as opposed to the availability of guns.

When citizens are allowed to own guns, the activities of criminals will be deterred. A right thinking criminal would be very cautious when planning to steal from people they openly know are in possession of guns. Indeed, with or without guns, criminal activities will always be prevalent because guns are not the only avenue for committing crimes. Criminals who are determined enough will always find ways of doing what they intend to do.

Therefore, enforcing gun control policies cannot have a significant effect on crime and violence. Actually, low homicide and crime rates are not a direct cause of low gun ownership. Law enforcing officers have established that guns used in committing murders are not registered, therefore, enhancing gun protection through legal means cannot bear much fruit. In addition, guns used in committing crimes are not stolen from registered owners, therefore, there is a possibility that these guns are smuggled from other nations.

Hence, gun control policies can therefore do very little in limiting the use of these illicitly acquired and owned guns. Gun controls also infringe on individual citizens right to defend themselves when they are attacked. These same laws are not making any effort in trying to restrict criminal gangs from getting firearms from the black market. This leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless.

With respect to whether self-defense is a good reason for gun ownership, it is imperative to note that citizens have an inalienable right to use guns for self-defense when they are attacked by gun wielding criminals. Since the government seems ill prepared to protect its citizens from crime and criminals, the only option should be to allow citizens to protect themselves.

Therefore, individuals should not be deprived of the ability to come up with ways of protecting themselves. Denying defenseless citizens the freedom to carry guns to protect themselves against lawless criminals only leaves them at the mercy of criminals.

Indeed, in the Warren v District of Columbia case, the court ruled that there is no right to police protection as there is no contract between the local police and an individual. The implied meaning of the court ruling was that each and every person should be responsible for their own security hence the need to own a gun.

Refutations to counter arguments

As refutations to counter the arguments that have been outlined above, it is not enough for people to push for the ownership of lethal weapons just because they want to protect their property. The fact that a person has a right to protect his or her property is not in dispute, but yearning to own a gun to enhance protection of this property by killing one who intends to steal it is not the best way to guarantee this right.

The argument that citizens should be allowed to own guns to deter would-be criminals can only hold if the citizens do not have intention to take away life that is very sacrosanct. It is also improper to threaten somebody else just because one is protecting his or her property.

In light of whether a person should have a right to own gun, an individual should be allowed to bear arms because this helps protect against domestic tyranny (Kates, para 1). In fact, gun ownership by individuals helps in checking government and police excesses. Police are most likely to be irresponsible and brutal if individual gun ownership is restricted by federal gun control policies.

Allowing individuals to own guns may make police weary with regard to infringing individuals liberties and abuse of law. Hence, gun control laws should be done away with, however, persons who own guns must be registered or licensed to reduce instances of gun misuse.

Works Cited

Endersby, Alastair. Gun control. 2000. Web. <https://idebate.org/>

Gun Control. Almanac of policy issues. 2011. Web.

Kates, Don. Why a Civil Libertarian Opposes Gun Control. The civil liberties Review. 3(2), 24. 1976. Print.

Malcolm, Joyce. Guns and violence: the English experience. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002. Print.

US Constitution. The United States Constitution. 2011. Web. <https://www.usconstitution.net/const.html>

Implementation of Limits on the Second Amendment

From the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings in which 32 people were killed to the recent October 1, 2015, mass shooting at the Umqua Community College where 9 people died; gun violence within the country has become a contentious issue that is at the forefront of societal awareness. However, despite these highly visible killings, it must still be questioned whether broad and extremely restrictive limitations should be placed on the Second Amendment (Ludwig and Cook 208). As a whole, gun violence within the U.S. has actually gone down with the Census Bureau clearly indicating a reduction of nearly 85 percent in annual gun-related deaths since the 1970s (Parham-Payne 753). Despite this, other countries that have implemented draconian measures in gun control, such as Japan, have only 2 to 3 deaths per year due to gun-related violence. This shows that extensive limitations on gun ownership and sale can have a considerable impact on gun-related deaths within a country and supports the argument that amendments should be made on the Second Amendment.

Mandatory Background Checks

Implementing mandatory background checks should be an absolute necessity when it comes to gun ownership. You cannot let people that have a history of mental health problems or individuals that have been shown to be prone to violence to own a lethal weapon that they can use to kill people (McLeigh 201). Based on this, background checks should go beyond simply determining a persons background, they should examine their psychological profile as well as examine people that may have access to the gun around their home. It is through such preventive measures that the government could potentially contain incidents where mentally unstable individuals have access to lethal weaponry.

Gun Shows

Some sellers at gun shows operate under what can only be described as a secondary market. This allows private sellers of firearms to transact with other private buyers without having to go through the process of background checks, create a detailed record of the sale or even ask the person for a piece of identification. As a result, this creates a significant gap in the capability of the government to properly limit the sale of firearms (Webster 2). While there are some states such as Washington that now require background checks by sellers at gun shows, many states do not have such limitations. This results in many gun shows simply moving to states that are less restrictive when it comes to the secondary market. The government needs to clamp down on this loophole since it has the potential for criminals or even mentally unstable people to purchase weapons that they can use to harm or even potentially kill innocent bystanders.

Mental Health

If a person wants to own a gun, then they should allow themselves to be subjected to a mental health checkup. Safety for the general public trumps individual privacy, and as seen by the numerous cases of mentally unstable individuals causing mass shootings, preventing such individuals from having access to deadly weaponry is a necessity (LaPierre 23).

Illegal Gun Market

Addressing the issue of the illegal gun market is somewhat contentious since it is hard to determine where specific guns originated from due to present-day processes or removing the serial numbers from weapons. The best the government could potentially do is eliminate caches of illegal gun sales rather than going after individual sellers (Troutman 3).

Works Cited

LaPierre, Wayne. Should Congress Pass Stronger Gun Laws?. Congressional Digest 92.3 (2013): 23-25. Print

Ludwig, Jens, and Philip J. Cook. The Benefits Of Reducing Gun Violence: Evidence From Contingent-Valuation Survey Data. Journal Of Risk & Uncertainty 22.3 (2001): 207-226. Print

McLeigh, Jill D. The New Normal? Addressing Gun Violence In America. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry (American Psychological Association) 85.3 (2015): 201-202. Print

Parham-Payne, Wanda. The Role Of The Media In The Disparate Response To Gun Violence In America. Journal Of Black Studies 45.8 (2014): 752-768. Print

Troutman, Adewale. Public Health Has Role To Play In Preventing Gun Violence In America. Nations Health 43.1 (2013): 3. Print

Introduction

The right for carrying weapons is, perhaps, one of the most controversial issues on the civil agenda of the present-day United States (Vermick wet al. 2021). While there is a strong belief that the prohibition to carry weapons or use them for the purposes of self defense in some way induces safety among the residents of the United States, statistics shows that banning armed weapons from use does not solve the problem.

More to the point, banning firearms from use seems to conflict with the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution. Most importantly, prohibiting guns from use does not affect the outbursts of violence within the country; while the given law serves as a means to hush down the problem without actually considering the factors that have caused it.

Thesis Statement

Gun regulation is a consistent source of debate within the United States, with advocates on either side unwilling to budge in their position; but regulation is merely treating the symptoms of the real issue.

Argument 1

The proponents of the law banning guns often mention the fact that the prohibition of firearms from being used by average citizens reduces crime rates in the state, as it will be displayed later. However, what most of the people providing the given argument forget is the fact that anti-gun laws do not, in fact, contribute to making people less violent; instead, they merely increase the distance between the victim and the aggressor (Blocher 121).

Argument 2

When it comes to the discussion of weapons banning, one should also bring the following fact to peoples attention: state authorities are concerned with the safety of the U.S. citizens and the possibility of a trauma or an injury as a result of using an automatic gun. Therefore, when it comes to semiautomatic weapons, state authorities should consider providing people with the opportunity to use weapons in order to protect themselves.

Argument 3

Eventually, the resolution provided by the Supreme Court must be mentioned in defense of the use of firearms, no pun intended.

This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well-regulated militia? if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldnt 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated. (Fareed para. 14; Burger para. 10)

The line drawn between an average citizen and the well-regulated militia (Casteen 210) should, therefore, be considered as another gap in the U.S. state law regarding firearms.

Counterargument

On a second thought, the current policy regarding gun control on the territory of the United States has a quite legitimate point. The current sanctions against firearms admittedly affect the rates of violent crime in a number of states.

Comparing the statistical data regarding the outbreaks of violence in different parts of the United States before and after the passing the law that prohibits carrying guns, one will inevitably find out that the number of armed robberies, as well as accidents related to gunshot wounds, have been reduced impressively from 780 to 490 per year (Kennesaw Police Department para. 1).

The statistics provided above shows in a very graphic way that, when having little to no access to firearms, people do not usually seek the means to obtain them and, therefore, do not use them in case of a conflict. As a result, the number of exchanges of fire between the people involved in organized crime, as well as the amount of instances of armed resistance to police and the injuries in cases of armed resistance, are brought down a few notches.

Rebuttal

While the statistics shown above is quite impressive, it should be mentioned that, along with the reduction of armed robberies, a steep rise in the use of cold weapons in robberies and rampages could be observed.

In addition, the fact that people are banned from carrying guns in most states of America does not prevent them from using firearms in public places: With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns (A Factual Look at Guns in America para. 4).

More to the point, the fact that some of the U.S. states, such as Georgia, introduced more liberal principles of bearing arms by passing the Mandatory Gun Law, the number of armed robberies dropped by nearly unbelievable 89% (Hamilton and Burch para. 7).

Despite the fact that the law obliges every single dweller of the city to carry a gun, not only is the crime rate within the city reduced impressively, but also a number of potential crimes have been prevented, according to the official statistics (Levine et al. 7). As the states official statistics show, compared to the rest of the cities in the county, Kennesaw maintains a relatively stable and very low crime rate, with only 576.7 crimes committed per year on average during 20022012 (Kennesaw Police Department para. 2)

When it comes to counterarguments against the use of firearms by ordinary citizens, the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed to the U.S. citizens by the Constitution is often overlooked. Indeed, according to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the U.S. residents do have the right to own guns and use them  though, initially, the possession of firearms presupposed that they should be used for hunting purposes: the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law (IV. The English Bill of Rights and the Present Controversy [131]).

It is also remarkable that what initially was supposed to be for their common Defence was swiftly changed into their Defence right before the Second Amendment was to come into force; the given detail shows that the concept of personal defense was stretched beyond the idea of fighting for ones right to live and embraced the idea of maintaining personal safety (Glanz and Annas 2360).

Therefore, it can be assumed that banning any kind of firearms in general and guns in particular does not solve the actual problem; to be more exact, laws against carrying guns do not address the problem that forces people to fend for themselves with the help of firearms; instead, these laws serve as a means to block the symptoms of the problem from taking place, instead of addressing the problem itself and attacking the factors that cause it (Cantor 506).

Indeed, taking a closer look at the problem of the use of guns, one will notice that, for the most part, people refer to high crime rates within the state to prove their point. Therefore, it is much more reasonable to consider making semiautomatic firearms use legal as a sensible compromise.

Works Cited

IV. The English Bill of Rights and the Present Controversy. n. d. Web.

Blocher, Joseph. Firearm Localism. Yale Law Journal 123.1 (2012), 121.

Burger, Warren. MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour Charlayne Hunter-Gault. 21 December 1991. Interview.

Cantor, Julie D. Bracing for the Impact of Expanded Second Amendment Rights. The New England Journal of Medicine 363.6 (2009), 506508.

Casteen, John. Ditching the Rubric on Gun Control. Virginia Quarterly Review (2004): 210-221.

Hamilton, Jonathan and David Burch. Gun Ownership  Its The Law In Kennesaw. n. d. Web.

Glanz, Leonard H. and George G. Annas. Handguns, Health, and the Second Amendment. The New England Journal of Medicine 360.22 (2009), 23602365.

Kennesaw Police Department. 4, January, 2013. Web.

Levine, Robert S. et al. Firearms, Youth Homicide, and Public Health. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 23.1 (2012), 719.

Vermick, Jon et al. Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: the US Supreme Courts recent Second Amendment Decisions. American Journal for Public Health 101.11 (2011), 20212026.

Argumentative On Gun Control

Gun control refers to the efforts put by the government to regulate or stop gun possession or sale by the public of a given country. Guns fall under firearms, which are classified into three broad categories; Handguns, Riffles and Short guns. They can be either automatic or semiautomatic. The automatic guns operate in such a way that, they continuously fire bullets as long as the trigger is pulled (Agresti and Smith, 2010).

Statistics from the United States of America show that out of a population of three hundred and seven million people, three hundred millions possess guns, accounting to around 97% of the population. However, in countries where possession of firearms by the public is illegal, it is very easy to acquire guns when one needs and unlike countries like US where firearms possession is legal, criminals possess the most firearms.

Different people in different parts of the world argue differently on the matter concerning gun possession by the public, which can have either a positive or a negative impact. For instance, people may keep guns for self-defense and protection against crime, hunting, target shooting, and clay bursting among others. The following essay will outline, describe, and weigh the reasons for gun possession and control around the world.

Reasons people keep guns

Most people argue that they keep guns for self-defense. They feel that the police may not be present all the time to protect them or their families from situations threatening their lives. In addition, some people feel that, as gun ownership decreases, the incidences of crime also drops since people are able to protect themselves (Chastain, 2010).

For instance, statistics show that in 1993, 0.5% households in the US used guns for defense in a situation where someone would have been killed if he never used a gun. In addition, 3.5% had used a gun in protection of their family and their property, 40% had stopped a planned attack after realizing that the victim had a gun, and 34% had ensnared a criminal using a gun, among others (Agresti and Smith, 2010).

Reports show that in many countries, most guns are owned for criminal purposes regardless of the fact that it is illegal to possess firearms. In addition, anyone who wishes to obtain a gun can easily obtain one in some situations; thus, cases of shootouts, homicide, and robbery are a very common scenario (Crooker, 2003).

This is the case almost everywhere in the world where most criminals use guns to accomplish their mission. In 2008, roughly armed criminal committed 8% of the crimes in the US. Such cases included robberies, rape cases, homicides, and many other kinds of assaults.

In many parts of the world, many people keep guns for hunting because traps or bows and arrows cannot hunt some game. Although this may be justified, challenges come in when the hunters use the firearm for the wrong purposes. The primary reason may be hunting but at times, these hunters use the guns to commit violence or to do illegal poaching. However, it is important for the hunter to be well equipped with enough knowledge on how to operate the firearm lest he bladders with the firearm (Kleck, 2005).

In countries where public can possess firearms, children are born, and as they grow up, they buy guns because their parents also owned one. At times, the parents may buy guns for them as gifts, while others find it cool to own a gun and go shooting with friends. In such cases, the gun owners may not be very careful on how they handle the firearms and the result at times is devastating (Valdez, 2003).

Gun control

Gun control is an important but very challenging task in every country because the victims always embrace it negatively. When gun control measures are enacted, the criminals find means of strengthening their actions thus endangering the life of people.

According to the statistics from US, legalizing gun possession endangers the life of people because it is not possible to differentiate between criminals and law-abiding citizens. In most cases, countries put gun control laws in place to prevent access by criminals and minors. Therefore, Federal measures should be enacted because this is the only way to regulating gun ownership (Valdez, 2003).

In countries where gun possession is legal, it is important to ensure that people acquire licenses for their firearms so that they may be careful to use them for the right purpose. By registering firearms, it is easier to do investigations incase of a crime. In America, gun control policies have been debated repeatedly in vain.

This is because the citizens in possession of guns outnumber the militia meaning the government will never succeed in getting firearms from the hands of its citizens. The incidences of mass shooting like the Columbine High School scandal are a clear indication that having guns in public hands is not safe (Gettings, 2010).

The second amendment act in the bill of rights reads, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. This amendment encouraged people in service of the state to keep arms, which was fine because it was not their personal interest but job requirement.

Reasons for Gun control laws

Gun control laws are the laws that define the situations under which it is right or wrong to own firearms. In Washington DC, murder crimes are low due to strong gun control laws while in Indianapolis, high rates of murder cases are a result of weak gun control measures (Williamson, 1008). Though people may feel secure in possession of firearms, it would be even more secure if no one was in possession since no crime is likely to take place.

In real sense, in a situation where someone uses a firearm for security purposes, he may either injure the victim or be injured. People may also shoot one another unintentionally when they are playing or a person is not having the right skills to use a gun. Moreover, when the public is in possession of guns, it makes it hard for the police to maintain law and order since they can be entangled in a scandal (Liptak, 2009).

Conclusion

Gun control policies and possibly abolishment of public possession of guns is the best step that the world can take today. This is because increased case or homicides, and robbery with violence are a result of so many guns in the public hands. Incase of places where abolishment is not possible, strong policies should be enacted in order to ensure guns are in possession of the right people and are serving the right purpose.

References

Agresti, J. and Smith, R. (2010). Gun control. Web.

Chastain, R. (2010). Why Own a Gun. Web.

Crooker, C. E. (2003). Gun control and gun rights. CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Gettings, J. (2010). Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation. Web.

Kleck, G. (2005). Point blank: guns and violence in America. NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Liptak, A. (2009). Justices Will Weigh Challenges to Gun Laws. Web.

Valdez, A. (2003). Gun Control. NY: InfoBase Publishing. Web.

Williamsons, M. Reasons for Gun Control. Web.